updating my priors
2620 stories
·
3 followers

Framework [Next Gen] Event is live on April 21

1 Share

We’ve spent the last six years in Framework proving that it’s possible to build high-performance, thin, light computers that last longer and respect your rights through repairability, upgradeability, and customization. We’re happy to see repair rapidly becoming the norm rather than the exception, with even Apple of all companies embracing it on their latest notebook. I built this company specifically to reset and fix a broken industry. So, mission accomplished? Not quite. There is a very real scenario in which personal computing as we know it is dead.

Memory, storage, silicon, and everything related to it is being consumed at unprecedented levels in a “winner takes all” race to an AI-first world in which access to compute is metered by the token. It’s clear that the fundamentals of computing and electronics have changed. The computer in the cloud has increasingly greater economic output than the computer in the hand. This means that to the extent that there are constraints on the supply that feeds both, the cloud will win every time. We see this in the rapidly rising costs of silicon and all of the devices that depend on it, the shift from ownership to subscription, and the rise of closed black boxes over an open ecosystem. What does this all mean? The industry is asking you to own nothing and be happy. Computers are no longer a bicycle for the mind. They are becoming the self-driving car that takes you directly to the destination.

You might be reading all of this and thinking, is this a farewell letter to personal computing? Is this the end of Framework? No, this is a manifesto. No matter how inevitable the AI-takes-all scenario may sound, as long as there is a person in the world who still wants to own their means of computation, we will be here to build the hardware that enables it. That means computers that you can own at the deepest level and do what you want with, whether that is choosing your OS, modifying your hardware, or even just keeping your data and computation local rather than leased from the cloud. We won’t get there all at once, but we will always be fighting for a future where you can own everything and be free.

Every step we take and every product we ship serves that goal. With that, we’re happy to announce that we have our next live launch event coming on April 21st at 10:30am PT in San Francisco. During the event, we’ll be streaming our announcements live to the Framework YouTube channel. You can subscribe and get notified when the stream goes live. We can’t wait for you to see what we’ve been working on.

These products are for you, so we’re opening a batch of invitations to the Framework Community so you can meet the team and get hands on with our newest products. Having community members at our event last year was a lot of fun, and we can’t wait for you to join us alongside press and partners. If you’re a Framework fan and are in the San Francisco area (or are able to handle your own travel to us), you can apply to attend in this sign-up form. We expect we’ll see a lot more interest than we have available seats in our venue, so don’t wait to get your application in.

We have one other update for you ahead of our launch event, which is that our products are now available to ship to four additional countries: New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and Singapore. You can start ordering everything we have in-stock now, though you may want to wait until the 21st to see what we’re announcing!
For a hint at what we’ll be announcing, head to the event page.

Read the whole story
jsled
1 day ago
reply
South Burlington, Vermont
Share this story
Delete

How We Maxxed Maxxing

1 Share

Perhaps you’ve heard of looksmaxxing, the online trend in which young men strive to become supposedly attractive, often through self-harm. Thanks to Clavicular, a young, fringe manosphere influencer, this term—and others modeled after it—has proliferated. You can be a looksmaxxer by soft maxxing (skin care or exercise) or by hard maxxing (plastic surgery or self-mutilation). Looksmaxxers often find themselves jester-maxxing, that is, using humor to gain the attention of women.

Maxxing can be specialized, too, and even modest, maximally speaking. A dude might be personality-maxxing instead of jester-maxxing. Less incel-maxxing versions might entail health-maxxing—what people called wellness approximately 10 minutes ago. Want your gut to be more regular? That’s fiber-maxxing. Want to build bulk? You’re protein-maxxing. Some so-called tradfem women want to bear more children through fertility-maxxing—a process our culture once understood as getting pregnant again. Maxxing goes the other way too, maximizing harm instead of benefit: Maybe you’ve got a drug habit, in which case you might be pill-maxxing. Anorexia, for some, is now starve-maxxing.

Everything worth doing seems to be worth maxxing. Want to use technology less and pursue human connections more? That’s friction-maxxing. What about relaxing or zoning out? You’re nothing-maxxing. Reading is book-maxxing. Going to bed is sleep-maxxing. Buying a pair of denim shorts for the welcome spring is probably jorts-maxxing. Think you’re reading an article right now? Nah, bruh, you’re Atlantic-maxxing.

The trend is irritating and stupid, but it also betrays a truth: The online life is an extremist one, and the result is fatigue-maxxing.

As with any trend, but especially in the depths of YouTube, Reddit, 4chan, Discord, Kik, or any of the other very online places, maxxing is overblown. Not many people are saying any of these things—at least not in large numbers. Instead, they are consuming protein, getting pregnant, and even reading books.

[Thomas Chatterton Williams: ‘Looksmaxxing’ reveals the depth of the crisis facing young men]

But an idea can become potent through its rapid depiction in culture—including in articles such as this one, which maxes maxxing even as it attempts to minimize it, somewhat. Online, our odd verbal tics—“Do better,” the figurative literally, “I can’t”/“I’m dead,” “THIS”—can seem like a mania. News about a mania can help make it a reality.

Writing at The New York Times, Nitsuh Abebe argues that -maxxing as a suffix is the love child of two cursed parents: the idea of optimizing a resource, which he attributes to video gaming, and incel culture, where he locates the origin of looksmaxxing specifically.

These two origins—gaming and incel culture—make maxxing seem perverse and fringe. Critic-maxxers hope Clavicular is, as my colleague Will Gottsegen put it, a curiosity—in other words, a freak. But a freak who might be dangerous, because his words and actions could spread. Perhaps they already have: Gottsegen’s concerns, for example, were affirmed by the hateful, violent, and anti-Semitic abuse he received from Clavicular acolytes after requesting an interview with the looksmaxxer in chief.

This version of online extremism’s story is a comforting one. A bad actor becomes radicalized online by other, prior bad actors, who then spread their particular gospel of badness further, online.

Radicalization really does work this way, sometimes. Colleen LaRose, a.k.a. Jihad Jane, became immersed in jihadist recruitment forums online, joined an al-Qaeda cell in Ireland, and became entrenched in a homicidal conspiracy. Anwar al-Awlaki, an American al-Qaeda propagandist, spread Muslim extremism among the English-speaking online world. Dylann Roof internalized white-supremacist messages from websites surfaced by search algorithms, and later carried out the 2015 shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the Boston Marathon bombers, was inspired by YouTube. So were Brenton Tarrant, who killed 51 people at Christchurch, New Zealand, mosques in 2019 after absorbing far-right ideologies from online forums such as 4chan, and Jake Angeli, the “QAnon Shaman” known for his shirtless, head-dressed appearance during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Though distressing, these well-known individual extremists offer consolation for aspiring normals, because they represent a perversion of norms, even while also threatening to erode those norms. So do categories of softer radicalism unattached to specific figureheads: “grindset” work extremists, manosphere red-pillers, disinformation-addled elder Facebookers, or “HODL” investment perverts. Life online appears to be neatly divisible, and indeed divided, into freaks on the one hand and, on the other, reasonable people such as yourself.

It is not. Online life is extremist in deep and broad ways. The intensity of internet life, even under ordinary circumstances, pushes us toward extremes on any topic—and every topic. No idea, belief, purchase, product, or event can be ordinary or innocuous. Everything must be done with absolutism, and those extremes must be performed in public, online.

When an influencer announces that she is “obsessed” with a makeup palette, slop bowl, or imported low-cost garment, her verbal tic spreads. Suddenly ordinary people also become “obsessed” with cleansers. They discover peptides they “can’t live without.” Mild enthusiasm doesn’t travel online. Intensity does. The algorithm, and the economy that supports it, first escalates speech that overstates the emotions that underlie it. As the speech spreads, the feeling follows. People truly come to believe that they cannot live without a particular peptide or a palette.

Over time, everything becomes either life-changing or irrelevant. Moderate positions can certainly be held, but only in the ordinary life one leads quietly and calmly offline—insofar as living offline is even possible anymore.

Fans no longer simply like a television show, film, comic book, author, quick-service restaurant, or any other cultural product. Instead, their enjoyment has become ramped up to a level formerly reserved for unhinged, extremist fandoms, such as Trekkies and Beanie Baby collectors. Fans feel the need to defend a work’s true meaning. They attack deviations from agreed-upon “canon.” They cease to interpret but instead draw lines in the sand. For every cultural good, identity has become fused with the object of interest, turning previously normal people leading unremarkable lives into Steak ’n Shake beef-tallow purists, Harry Potter moralists, or cast-iron-pan-cleaning radicals.

[Charlie Warzel: This is what it looks like when nothing matters]

On Facebook or Nextdoor, a missing package can never represent a simple misfortune or misunderstanding; it must instead become urban decay or a racist incursion. A loud car heard blocks or miles away represents social breakdown. A dog let off the leash becomes indicative of moral rot. An opinion offered offhand suggests a secret wickedness that must be exorcised. Platforms reward escalation with attention, and the audience also often responds. And so everyday life becomes overinterpreted, as local forums become symbolic battlegrounds.

You no longer buy or use or encounter goods, services, or events, but endure them with your whole person: I am a Moleskine journaler; I am a Stanley-cup commuter; I am a barefoot-shoe jogger. Advice or even just notions—only check email after noon; never do 10 reps of crunches—solidify into absolutism or vanish.

The speed, urgency, and constancy of online life amplifies extremism because posting, replying, and generally participating in the discourse is its own virtue enrobing all the rest, an internet-maxxing to rule all the others. Liking became fixation, watching became safeguarding, asking turned to prosecution, trying devolved to optimizing, noticing twisted into diagnosis.

Maxxing declares this state of affairs honestly. Finally, we can shed the pretense that internet life is reasonable, level-headed, or healthy. The whole internet is a machine for extremist thought, belief, and action. Maxxing could amount to its endgame—the final victory of full-throated extremism of any form and kind. But immoderacy online always ratchets up. Eventually, and probably soon, the max-maxxers will seem temperate in hindsight.

Read the whole story
jsled
10 days ago
reply
South Burlington, Vermont
Share this story
Delete

The In Living Color Effect

1 Share

On Sunday, April 15, 1990, Americans got their first look at a daring new experiment in television—a sketch-comedy show intended to pose a direct challenge to NBC’s long-running Saturday Night Live. In Living Color was the brainchild of Keenen Ivory Wayans. He was the head writer and star, supported by four of his brothers and the rest of a cast—and dance troupe—made up almost entirely of people of color. Americans had never seen anything like it before. And they loved it. I sure did.

I was 10 years old, sitting wide-eyed beside my brother in our family’s South Jersey living room. It felt like someone had kicked open the door to a party I hadn’t even known I was waiting to be invited to. I’d seen Black faces on TV before, but rarely had I seen so many, all at once, being this funny, this free, this in control. In Living Color didn’t just make me laugh, it reflected the rhythm of the barbershops, family reunions, and cookouts I knew so well.

That wasn’t an accident. It was the product of a deliberate strategy set in motion when Barry Diller launched the Fox network in 1986 with a mission to disrupt the television status quo. Back then, the Big Three—ABC, CBS, and NBC—offered a steady stream of safe, interchangeable programming. As the scrappy new contender, Fox had to break the mold. Diller, along with the programming chief, Garth Ancier, set out to build a network that was alternative by design and saw being different as a virtue, not a risk.

The breakthrough, Diller told me, came with a script for a show pointedly titled Not the Cosbys—a reaction to the wholesome, top-rated sitcom The Cosby Show. That script became Married … With Children, that gleefully subversive sitcom that set the tone for everything that followed. “It was as alternative as you could get in terms of what the American networks were offering to viewers,” Diller explained. “Once we knew we were an alternative and that we had to be edgy, it dictated almost every decision we made.”

That ethos produced groundbreaking successes—The Simpsons, Cops, and a slate of other shows that challenged everything about what network television could be. But nowhere did it shine brighter than in the emergence of In Living Color and, soon after, Martin, two shows that would help transform Fox into an unlikely powerhouse of Black cultural creativity. It wasn’t a plan; it was a by-product of being open to voices, visions, and brilliance that the legacy networks too often ignored. “It made Fox the No. 1 network,” Diller noted.

What most of America didn’t realize at the time was that they were witnessing the dawn of a new era in entertainment, one where Black artists were flourishing because of, rather than in spite of, their Blackness.

In the months leading up to In Living Color’s debut, Keenen Ivory Wayans and the cast had been grinding, fine-tuning sketches without knowing which would make the cut. Fox, meanwhile, was on edge—eager for a hit but wary of just how much ground this groundbreaking show might actually break. Their fears proved unfounded. The premiere drew a staggering 23 million viewers—an astronomical number for a fledgling network that wasn’t even airing programming seven days a week.

Fox slotted In Living Color right after its two biggest comedies, The Simpsons and Married … With Children, but by then, the show was already a hot topic. The network had dragged its feet so long on airing the pilot that bootleg copies started circulating within the industry—and beyond. In New York City, street vendors were selling tapes of the unaired episode months before its official debut. One of those copies found its way to the Details magazine writer Martha Frankel, who wrote a rave review questioning why Fox was holding it back. The next day, Fox executives scrambled and finally green-lighted eight episodes.

A closer look at the sketches in the pilot demonstrates just how far Keenen was willing to go to upend norms and rattle people—and just how subversive his vision was. Keenen was eager to take down whoever he felt would get a laugh. “What was cool about those guys is that they’d mock the heroes of their community, which is a real threading of the needle,” Les Firestein, a co–head writer of the show, said of Keenen and his younger brother Damon. “Having the ability to make fun of yourselves as a culture is a show of great strength. One of the things that was seminal about In Living Color was that Black people enjoyed laughing at Black people. That was the seismic change. You had an entire culture getting to the point where they said we’re strong enough that we can laugh at the more ridiculous parts of our own culture.” That alone was new ground for Black comedy on television, which hadn’t been ready 13 years earlier for the strange, rebellious vision of Richard Pryor on The Richard Pryor Show.

One of the first things the audience sees in the In Living Color pilot is Keenen stepping onto the stage, introducing his cast—but, in true form, he doesn’t play it straight. “I’ll tell you what I’m most proud of,” he says, locking eyes with the camera. “Unlike other shows, I’ve got nothing but qualified Black people backstage making decisions.”

[Read: The Godfather of American Comedy]

With perfect timing, he swings open the door to the writers’ room—only for a swarm of panicked white writers to scurry out. Keenen, deadpan, assures the audience they’re just the cleaning staff. He then gestures toward a bewildered Black woman holding a mop. “And this,” he says with a grin, “is our head writer.” The bit lands perfectly—sharp, subversive, and hilarious. Then, without missing a beat, Keenen moves on and introduces the cast: “We went nationwide to find the most talented people in the country,” Keenen announces with a straight face—before rattling off a lineup that sounds more like a family roll call than a casting list. “Damon Wayans, Kim Wayans, Crystal Wayans, T. J. Wayans, Toney Wayans, Tommy Wayans …” The message is clear—and hilariously ironic. Many cast members would later (half) joke that the surest way to get on the show and thrive was to have “Wayans” on your birth certificate.

Keenen brags about how integrated the show is—and then opens a door that is labeled White Cast Members Only, behind which Jim Carrey and Kelly Coffield are shining shoes and ironing clothes while grinning and singing “Camptown Ladies.”

“Oh, those people,” Keenen says. “Always singing, always happy.”

From there, the pilot goes on to directly lampoon a Black hero: The first sketch, “Love Connection,” features Carrey as the ever-smarmy Chuck Woolery, while Keenen steps in as Mike Tyson, paired with Kim Coles as his new wife, Robin Givens. Keenen leans into the broad caricature—giving Tyson the signature lisp and playing him as a clueless, sexist ogre. From the jump, the show made its stance clear: No one was off-limits.

That particular Tyson impression became more common, but in 1990, Mike was still young, ferocious, and not yet a go-to punch line. (Remember, this was some 20 years before Tyson made fun of himself in The Hangover.) He had just been knocked out by Buster Douglas in Japan two months before the episode aired—though the sketch had been written before that stunning defeat. It didn’t take long for Keenen to learn that Tyson wasn’t amused. One night at a club, Mike spotted him and stormed over.  

“That was the scariest moment of my life,” Keenen recalled. “All I feel is this paw land on my shoulder. I turn around and it’s the heavyweight champion of the world. He stepped to me. He goes, ‘What? I kill your mother or something?’”

Tyson clearly didn’t like the impression. Months later, Keenen said he ran into Tyson again, and he was more relaxed. “He was actually really cool,” Keenen said. “He was like, ‘Yo, I was just going through some things. You do your thing.’”

The show never shied away from making fun of Black culture, as seen in the recurring sketch “Great Moments in Black History.” One of the most memorable bits claimed that a Black man had “invented” self-serve gas stations. The punch line? Cast member Tony Riley playing an apathetic gas-station attendant who yells at a customer, “Get it your damn self!”

Audiences loved it. The studio crowd for In Living Color’s pilot exceeded even Keenen’s wildest expectations. “Black audiences don’t just laugh at stuff, we stomp our feet, we high-five,” said Paul Miller, the show’s primary director. “People were literally running up and down the aisles during the taping, high-fiving each other. One of the executives turned to me and said, ‘Did you pay these guys to do that?’” Kevin Bright, a supervising producer in the first season who later co-created Friends, had never seen anything like it. “At Friends, I’d never seen a first taping of anything where the audience was that crazy,” Bright told me. “They were on fire.”

For Larry Wilmore, a writer on the show’s first three seasons who went on to co-create The Bernie Mac Show and produce The Office and Black-ish, working on In Living Color often felt “surreal.”

“In those days, if you worked on In Living Color, people went crazy,” Wilmore told me. “They would say, ‘So what do you do?’ I go, ‘Oh, I write for television.’ ‘Oh, really?’ They didn’t seem that impressed. ‘Well, what shows do you write for?’ ‘I write for In Living Color.’ And they go, ‘In Living Color! Oh my God!’ The energy they had for that show, it was so interesting. And I think because we were pushing boundaries at that time that hadn’t really been pushed before, especially in race and culture. And people were so excited to see that on their television.”

Those who had devoted their lives to making the show had other reasons to be excited. Keenen recalls having moved to L.A. with Hollywood dreams—only to discover that the industry expected young Black men to only play thugs or pimps. Even worse was when they wouldn’t get those parts because they were told they sounded too educated.

“I’m from a family of 10 in the projects, and I find out I’m not ‘Black enough,’” Keenen said.

In the summer of 1978, Keenen stood in line for his shot at a five-minute set at the Improv in Los Angeles. He met the only other Black guy there, Robert Townsend, and the two became inseparable. (Townsend would go on to become an accomplished comedian, actor, and the director of legendary comedy specials such as Eddie Murphy Raw.) Keenen bombed his first set, but it didn’t matter. “I bombed terribly. It was an out-of-body experience,” he said. “Still, I was looking at myself like, You’re doing it.”

Keenen studied other comics closely, analyzing how they wrote jokes. “Even as a young comedian, Keenen was kind of a master craftsman. He knew instinctively how to set up a punch, deliver the joke, rewrite the structure, make it funnier.” Those were skills that would serve him well with In Living Color 12 years later.

But when Keenen came home from Tuskegee in his second year to tell his parents he was dropping out to pursue comedy instead of engineering, they didn’t understand. Marlon, still in elementary school, was there to witness the moment. “My mother cursed Keenen out,” Marlon told me. “My mother said, ‘Boy, a stand-up comedian? I known you your whole life and you ain’t never said nothing funny. This shit is the funniest thing you ever said! You’re going to be a stand-up comedian? Let me tell you something, boy. You better go out there and get your engineer’s degree and a job with some benefits!” Keenen knew there was very little chance they would understand. “I might as well have said I was going to smoke crack,” he said. “But I knew deep in myself what I wanted to be. I knew I was going to do it.”

His biggest break came when he landed a spot on The Tonight Show in 1983. By then, he was five years into his stand-up career—seasoned, confident. He told a joke about his older brother, Dwayne, who, as Keenen put it, finds racism in everything. “He’s like, ‘The white man don’t want to see you make it! They don’t want to see you get ahead. They got a conspiracy out there!’ Does he think there’s some secret organization sitting around going, ‘Now, there are too many Black people making it in this country. They’re making too much progress. Now, let’s see … We got Malcolm X, we got Martin Luther King … Dwayne! He’s up for promotion at McDonald’s! Stop him!’” The crowd erupted. Then came the ultimate trophy—Carson called him over to the couch. They were headed to commercial, so there was no time for an interview, but as the show cut away, Carson’s voice could be heard: “That’s funny stuff.”

Keenen grew close with Eddie Murphy and even closer with Townsend. Along with Arsenio Hall and Paul Mooney, they formed what Mooney later called the Black Pack, a nod to Sinatra’s Rat Pack. When the time came, assembling the cast for In Living Color proved to be a challenge—even with Keenen’s siblings in the mix. Keenen saw SNL as a writer-driven show, but he wanted ILC to be performer-driven, where the writing would serve the cast. His plan was to build the show around his brother Damon and add the best talent he could find. “Damon was at a point comedically where he was the most brilliant guy on the planet,” Keenen said. “The way he thought, the way his point of view was completely different than mine or anybody else’s. He was really on the edge.”

“The Wayanses are kind of a comedy troupe in and of themselves,” Rob Edwards, a Black writer on the show who created “Great Moments in Black History,” told me. “They’d go out to dinner—they eat as a family all the time—and try to crack each other up.” The next day, they’d bring those stories to the writers’ room. “The writers would take as much of this down as humanly possible,” Edwards said. “They have incredible characters, timing, and a great sense of what’s funny.”

Keenen’s authority over the show was undisputed. He had strong ideas, and whether people saw him as confident and visionary or arrogant and dismissive, he commanded respect. He wasn’t a screamer or a tantrum thrower, but his presence was intimidating. He took input, but not dissent. “It was a dictatorship,” Keenen admitted.

And that dictatorship worked. Right before the premiere of Season 2, In Living Color won an Emmy for Outstanding Variety, Music, or Comedy Series—beating The Arsenio Hall Show, Saturday Night Live, and Late Night With David Letterman. Keenen especially enjoyed besting SNL, which had unceremoniously dumped Damon. But Hollywood had no interest in rewarding the show beyond that—In Living Color never won another Emmy.

“Keenen is one of the true geniuses of sketch comedy,” says David Alan Grier. “Meaning, you do a scene, it’s all flat, and Keenen says, ‘If you pick up your pencil, look to the right and say the same joke, it’s gonna work.’ You trust him, you do it, and it kills. Most people don’t know comedy. They can’t fix it. You stumble on a great joke, you don’t know why it’s great. But Keenen had that ability. I’ve been acting over 30 years, there’s maybe two or three people like that.”

By the time Jamie Foxx joined in Season 3, the show had hit its stride. But breaking in wasn’t easy. “When I saw Damon walk in and Jim walk in, it was like fucking Jurassic Park,” Foxx recalled. “I was the eighth-funniest person in the room at any given time. I had to be quiet sometimes to learn my way.”

Black comedians had been honing their craft since the days of vaudeville, through the early days of television, and into the transformative decades of the 1960s and ’70s, despite segregation and institutional racism. Bert Williams, Jackie “Moms” Mabley, Redd Foxx, Dick Gregory, Bill Cosby, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy—these were artists who used humor to subvert the status quo and carve out space where there had previously been none.

By the 1990s, that legacy had taken root. And as Keenen Ivory Wayans assembled the cast of In Living Color, he sought talent outside the industry’s usual pipelines. “Minority talent is not in the system, and you have to go outside,” he told the press at the time. “We went beyond the Comedy Stores and Improvs, which are not showcase places for minorities.” He pulled in unknowns and rising stars—his brothers Damon, Shawn, and Marlon, alongside T’Keyah Crystal Keymáh, Kim Coles, and Tommy Davidson. Jennifer Lopez danced as part of the “Fly Girls,” with Rosie Perez as choreographer. There was one white guy: a rubber-faced impressionist from Canada named Jim Carrey.

The show’s success kicked off what would become a cultural boom. I didn’t have the language then to describe what was happening, but I felt it—this rush of pride, this sense that we were finally being seen not just as characters on a screen, but as full, complex people. The ’90s were the first time I remember being able to flip through TV channels and see Blackness represented in a way that felt real and expansive: in Martin Lawrence’s outrageous antics, the aspirational brilliance of A Different World, Living Single’s confident cool, and The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air’s blend of humor and heart.

[Read: I Watched Stand-Up in Saudi Arabia]

Of course, tensions simmered behind the scenes. The Wayans family’s bold vision for In Living Color eventually collided with the instincts of Fox network executives, who found the show too raw, too provocative—especially in contrast to the pastel wholesomeness of NBC’s The Cosby Show. But the irreverence was the point. It was what made the show matter. And it was what drew comics including Chris Rock and Jamie Foxx into its orbit. Rock famously left—or was pushed out of—SNL after growing frustrated with the limited roles he was given. “SNL is a pretty white show,” he later said. “And In Living Color was just hip. The shit was hot.”

It was hot because Black creative power was being unleashed across every creative industry—television, yes, but also film, fashion, and music. “I think a lot of Black culture was finding its voice during that time,” Larry Wilmore told me. “If you talk about Black shows on television [before that], many of them were created and run by white people.” That shift—from being the subject of stories to being the storyteller—is what made the ’90s revolutionary.

I am a product of that revolution. I came of age watching Black characters who reminded me of people I knew, who were messy and hilarious and ambitious and flawed. They shaped how I saw the world and how I saw myself moving through it. I’m a journalist now, but I grew up loving comedy because it was one of the first places I saw truth telling as an art form. Jokes that punched up, that slipped past defenses, that revealed something deeper while still making you laugh.

The boom of Black comedy unfolded against a backdrop of real political change: the end of the Cold War, an economic boom, and shifting demographics that made America more diverse—and more reflective of voices that had long been kept on the margins. The decade also saw a resurgence of Black political consciousness, inspired by the civil-rights generation and fueled by modern injustices—the beating of Rodney King, rising incarceration rates. Black TV responded in kind. Shows tackled racism, sexism, and classism. Even sitcoms, cloaked in laugh tracks, were often sly Trojan horses for deeper truths.

The audience was changing too. More Black people were attending college and joining the middle class, which created demand for more nuanced portrayals. Before the ’90s, TV ratings among Black and white audiences were nearly identical. But by the decade’s end, Black viewers had more options—and made different choices. Seinfeld, while beloved by critics, never broke into the top 10 for Black households. This was more than a shift in taste. It was a cultural realignment. And through it all, the lineage of Black comedy stayed unbroken.

Jamie Foxx named himself in tribute to Redd Foxx, the comic who went from performing in nightclubs where he was the only Black person onstage to his role on the breakout hit Sanford & Son as Fred Sanford. Arsenio Hall gave Chris Rock his big break, which led him to SNL. Arsenio also mentored Will Smith, paving the way for The Fresh Prince—and shared a screen with Eddie Murphy in Coming to America. That movie featured John Amos, who’d starred in Good Times, and a then-unknown Samuel L. Jackson.

By 1992, even as the golden age of Black sitcoms was peaking, a struggling playwright in Atlanta named Tyler Perry put on his first play with $12,000 of his life savings. Three decades later, he would be a billionaire, having founded the largest Black-owned studio in the country.

When you compare American comedy in the 1920s of Redd Foxx’s childhood with American comedy in the 2020s, one thing is clear: Black comedians have had one hell of a century. Many of these comics were more than entertainers. They were cultural translators and civil-rights figures in their own right. They didn’t change the world by marching on Washington or facing down fire hoses, but because they climbed onstage night after night, often in rooms where few looked like them, and dared to be brilliant.

Without In Living Color, and Keenen Ivory Wayans’s vision for it, we may never have witnessed the rise of Damon Wayans, Jim Carrey, Tommy Davidson, Jamie Foxx, Kim Wayans, Shawn Wayans, Marlon Wayans, David Alan Grier—even Jennifer Lopez. Without them, there would not have been any “golden age” of Black comedy. The path that led to a Secretary of State Colin Powell or a President Barack Obama might have looked very different. And I don’t know that I’d be sitting here today, writing this essay.


This essay was adapted from Bennett’s new book, Black Out Loud: The Revolutionary History of Black Comedy From Vaudeville to ’90s Sitcoms.

Read the whole story
jsled
18 days ago
reply
South Burlington, Vermont
Share this story
Delete

The TBOTE Project

jwz
1 Share
This is some boss-level forensic accounting demonstrating that Facebook secretly wrote and is shepherding the various "age verification" bills.

Age Verification Lobbying: Dark Money, Model Legislation & Institutional Capture:

How corporate lobbying, think tank infrastructure, competing model legislation, and obscured funding networks are shaping age verification policy across 45 states and Congress.

This investigation documents a national lobbying operation spanning corporate spending, think tank infrastructure, dark money networks, and competing model legislation templates. Meta spent a record $26.3 million on federal lobbying in 2025, deployed 86+ lobbyists across 45 states, and covertly funded a group called the Digital Childhood Alliance (DCA) to advocate for the App Store Accountability Act (ASAA). But the operation extends beyond Meta. [...]

This investigation traced funding flows across five confirmed channels, analyzed $2.0 billion in dark money grants, searched 59,736 DAF recipients, parsed LD-2 filings, and mapped campaign contributions across four states to document the operation.

Previously, previously.

Read the whole story
jsled
24 days ago
reply
South Burlington, Vermont
Share this story
Delete

Divine Patronage: A Separate System for Party Advancement

1 Share
In the past, I've written about why parties should have their own character sheet.  The party sheet can track reputation, how noisy they are in the dungeon (i.e. how fast they advance the Underclock), shared resources, hirelings, et cetera.

I've been sort of pondering how to include party advancement, or party level-ups, into the party sheet system, but I never had a solid concept until I re-read these posts by Bret Devereaux on ancient polytheism and I think it clicked into place.  
  • The characters level up by going into dungeons and getting treasure.  
  • The party levels up by gaining the support of the gods.
Ancient polytheism wasn't about morals, it was about pleasing the gods so that they'll do things for you.  (Or at least, so that they'll refrain from doing bad things to you.)  You sacrifice to Poseidon not because you love Poseidon and align with his morals, but because you are bargaining with him.  "If I give you this bull, you won't sink my ship on the way to Athens, right?"  

It's results-based.  

And it's also subtle.  If you have clear sailing on the way to Athens, is that because Poseidon approves of your trip, or is it just good luck?

This creates a third way that a character can be good at something.
  1. You improve your skill.  +1 lockpicking.
  2. You get better lockpicks.  +1 lockpicking.
  3. The god of locks is pleased with the party.  -1 to lockpicking DC.
You'll notice that these three options vary in liquidity.  If you improve your lockpicking skill, you can't share that with anyone else.  But if you have magic lockpicks, those can be given to someone else.  And if the god of locks is pleased with the party, then everyone benefits.

They're also different in terms of continuity.  Skills die with their owner, while magic items can be passed to the next character.  And a god's favor is functionally a permanent bonus to the whole party in perpetuity, which allows for a kind of permanent, party-wide progression.

There's also a sort of mythic resonance to it.  By the time party reaches high level and saves the world, they'll probably have many sorts of divine favor.  In many myths, the heroes are only able to do great things because they have the favor of the gods.

The October Horse
By © Marie-Lan Nguyen / Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain

The Divine Patronage System

Throughout the city of Lon Barago, and in the dungeon beneath it, there are various churches, shrines, and altars.  Here are some of the gods you might find:
  • Ashurbandus - God of War and Wine - Initiative Rolls
  • Parshekkis - God of Hugeness - Breaking Doors, Bending Bars, etc.
  • Trasmiel - Goddess of Locks, Knots, & Hair - Locks 
  • Asmot - Goddess of Death and Disease - Death Saves
  • Phosmora - Goddess of Gold & the Underworld - The Underclock
  • Ephora - Goddess of the Hearth - Spirit
And of course, there are also altars set up to the king of Lon Barago.  You can make sacrifices at these altars, too.
  • Calderion - King of Lon Barago - Negotiating with the Authorities
Make a significant sacrifice and you get a small boon.  The sacrifice can be something like offering a magic sword to the church as a gift, or making a donation of at least (3d6 *100) silver.  (You can make the roll after the players donate the silver.)

Do a great service for the deity and get a major boon.  This is probably a bespoke quest, based on the dungeon at hand.

If you ever do something awful, these bonuses can invert into similar penalties.  Examples of awful actions: desecration of a shrine, stealing a god's property, blasphemy, atheism.

Boons of Ashurbandus, God of War

(Note: I use flat group initiative.  Everyone rolls Wisdom against DC 15.   The average stat is +4, so this is roughly a coin flip.  Everyone who wins initiative acts first.  Then all the monsters act.  Then the sides just alternate from there.)

Minor - DC for Initiative checks is now 14.

Major - DC for Initiative checks is now 13.

Most other gods have similar boons to this.

Boons of Phosmora, Goddess of the Underworld

(Note: normally the Underclock starts at 20 and counts down.)

Minor - The first time you enter the dungeon, the first Underclock starts at 25.  Afterwards, the Underclock starts at 20, as usual.

Major - As above, except the first Underclock starts at 30.

Boons of Ephora, Goddess of the Hearth

Minor - +1 Spirit.

Major - +2 Spirit.

Since Spirit is basically a HP pool that the whole party shares, this is essentially more HP for the whole party.

Boons of Calderion, King of Phosmora

Minor - It is now easier to negotiate with guards and other royal personages (including the king).  Reduce these checks down to DC 13.

Major - DC 11.

You might point out that this is just normal gift-giving.  Of course the king will look more favorably on people who give him gifts.  There's nothing divine about someone treating you better after you've been showering them with gifts and praise.

My response would be: yes, exactly.  This is how it works for all of the gods, not just the king.  The only difference is that the king is still alive.  Both gods and kings can ruin your life with a wave of their hand.  There's less functional difference there than you might think.

Discussion

You can just write the new DCs on the same whiteboard that you use to list the Underclock.  That way the players have clear and visible proof that they are (1) advancing in a cool diagetic way, and (2) legitimately favored by the gods.

It's also worth mentioning that this is pretty easy to implement in my games because pretty much everything uses fixed DCs.  If a lock can be picked at all, the DC is 15.  If you have wildly variable door locks in your game, you can't just write the singular DC on the whiteboard because you don't have a singular DC for all locks.  (I also think that lowering fixed DCs in the easiest way to implement divine favor.  The other way would be to tell everyone that they get +1 to pick locks on this character and all future characters, which seems like one more fiddly stupid +1 that I would hate to track if I was a player.)

This also is a good mechanism for getting players to care about the different gods of your setting.  And if you're anything of a history nerd, this might soothe the part of your brain that chafes at all the incorrect polytheism that you see in D&D all the time.

Like, even the evil gods (Like Asmot, goddess of death and disease) should be respected and honored.  Ares and Hades are evil gods (sort of--they were definitely unpleasant gods) but were still worshipped by the Greeks.

Another thing I like about this system is that keeps the effects of divine favor relatively subtle.  Is the party having better luck picking locks because they've gotten better or because Trasmiel is smiling on them?  Or is it self-fulfilling, where the sacrifice to Trasmiel gives them the confidence to pick locks better?

I assume that this works diagetically.  If you made a big sacrifice to Ares and then go on to kick ass on the battlefield, you would probably assume that he is smiling on you.  So both the characters and the players share an understanding.

Lastly, I haven't spent too much time talking about the game design side of this, but please note that this system is both (1) permanent, and (2) party-wide, including new characters.

Getting +1 Initiative is not a huge bonus, but if the whole party gets it forever, it's huge.

Because future characters get it, too, it helps support troupe play.  Players are also incentivized to switch characters, since some of their "level ups" are now shared across all characters.  It also means that dying is a little less painful, since not all of their character advancement is lost--you get to keep your divine favor when you roll a new character.

One more thing: the gods are local.  So when you leave Lon Barago and cross the mountains and do some other megadungeon there, you need to start over with new gods, and rebuild divine favor there.  (You don't have to do it this way, but it's how I plan to implement it.)  This is basically a dungeon-specific form of leveling up.  This topic probably deserves its own blog post, but this can be desirable if you want (a) players to feel like they are mastering a specific location, not just their own character build, and (b) you want to allow a small power reset, if you have powerful character leave one area and go into another.

(Digression: I've often wondered if WoW would be better served by something like this.  Instead of having constantly higher and higher levels, followed by level squish, just have a character level and then a zone level.  Like, you're a badass in Outlands but you need to learn how to fight Shadowlands enemies separately.)

One last note: I've limited myself to a pretty modest implementation here.  +1 Initiative is not going to break your game.  But you could easily expand this to bigger aspects of progression.  What if you could get up to +4 to hit by making sacrifices to the God of War?  You could balance it out a little by reducing the amount of to-hit bonus you get from your class, sure, but the net effect is that the focus of the game becomes making big sacrifices to gods.  Since these bonuses are party-wide, it's sort of like everyone leveling up together.

One more knob to turn, when designing a game.
Read the whole story
jsled
27 days ago
reply
South Burlington, Vermont
Share this story
Delete

Iconography of a history yet to happen

1 Share
I have long been a big fan of the Semiotic Standard developed for Alien (1979) by Ronn Cobb for "all commercial trans-stellar & heavy element transport craft" - in particular Artificial Gravity Absent is just so cheery. There should be lots of icons like that littering future settings, addressing problems we are not even considering yet.

Snip of Semiotic Standard by Ronn Cobb, recreated by Scotch and Soda


I have two particular cases in mind where there should be something like this about.
- Iconography developed by alien multi-species civilizations (Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5)
- Iconography still lying around from the distant past (Warhammer 40k's dark age of technology, Foundation)

Alien gestures

While noting that iconography assumes that one is communicating with other critters that also 'read' or similar, one would assume that if you are sharing environments closely enough that some hazards or information needs to be communicated passively, this would get worked out.

The key here is 'form' - but actually there is quite a bit of leeway - looking across our iconography, a sufficiently abstracted 'Predator' would look the same; even a very strange alien form would be renderable in most of these signs with minor modifications - it would still have 'standing' 'lying' 'floating upside-down' and 'suited-up' forms - albeit with a tail or six limbs or an octopoid form or what have you. Swap those out and all the rest of those icons remain comprehensible.

One would assume that a whole block of hazards that are not dangerous to humans would appear on such a set - perhaps warnings of 'large beings walking' for smaller creatures or a variety of dangerous atmosphere tags for things with less tolerance of pollutants or even certain atmospheric components than humans.

From the history of a far future

For 40k, there ought to be some iconography that roots in the dark age of technology that ought to be plastered all over everything - even recognising that the Imperium has its skulls-and-wings staples, there ought to be other symbols in there that have persisted alongside the quasi-magical technologies they have. Red and yellow hazard striping has been part of armour designs for as long as folk have been painting but it would be neat to have some other iconography too.

For all that the Imperium has lost lots of know-how and technology, simple icons ought to have persisted - things like 'psi hazard', various warnings for plasma, melta, las and other hazardous technologies and all the semiotic standard above for voidships. Maybe some kind of 'beware the Men of Iron' or the like.

I would think that Necromunda terrain and Genestealer Cult gear would have lots of these plastered all over the day-to-day objects they use and fight through.

A counter argument could be heiroglyphics - where the meaning of symbols became lost for a chunk of time until dedicated study restored it to understanding. This could well be a valid argument, but I posit a setting where enough time-lost spaceships, isolated colonies and long-lived organisations stuck around that such symbols have survived, even if only a fraction of them.

What use to you, a DM?

Maybe not a lot, maybe what I am probing at here is that in your far future setting there could be icons and indicators that have become common across species or persist through time such that the ancient site you break into is comprehensible.

I feel there is an exercise here of going, much like Ronn Cobb did, "what hazards do folk face in this environment, what needs to be warned against" and coming up with symbols for those. If you could create such a set, imagine sharing a map with your players where all the hazards and traps are fully explained in the iconography, the challenge is for them to figure out the translation and then map their path based on that.

= = = Joesky tax = = =

d6 Icons of a Future Yet To Pass
1. Arm intersected and shifted by an arc - "Danger, Reactive Energy Shields"
2. Triangular 'face' with spiral eyes - "Caution, free-will subverting entities"
3. Black human figure with light blue line around head in front of red/white spiral - "Wear psy-barrier equipment"
4. Human figure with right side dissolving into pixels - "No shielding beyond this point"
5. Human figure with head split diagonally, across split is squared skull - "Beware humaniform mechanoids"
6. Diagonal split vertical lines and dots (1/0 cascade) with triangles/circles/squares - "Data corruption / memetic contamination"
Read the whole story
jsled
27 days ago
reply
South Burlington, Vermont
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories